We would like to invite you to the Technoshamanism meeting in Axat, south of France, at Le Dojo art space and association.

We still enjoy temporary autonomous zones, new ways of life, of art / life, we try to think and cooperate towards the goal of food self-sufficiency and interdependence, towards the reforestation of the Earth, and towards the ancestorfuturist fertilization of the imagination. Our main practice is to promote networks of the unconscious to strengthen the desire to form communities as well as proposing alternatives to the “productive” thinking of science and technology.

THE NETWORK

The Technoshamanism network exists since 2014. The network has published one book and organized two international festivals held in the south of Bahia (these were produced in partnership with the Pataxó from indigenous villages Aldeia Velha and Aldeia Pará – these villages are near Porto Seguro, where the first Portuguese caravels arrived in the year 1500). The third festival is planned for August 2019 in Denmark.

Technoshamanism arises from the confluence of several networks deriving from the free software and free culture movements. It is promoting meetings, events, DIY ritual performances, electronic music, foodforest and immersive processes, remixing worldviews and promoting the decolonization of thought. The network brings together artists, biohackers, thinkers, activists, indigenous and indigenists promoting a social clinic for the future, the meeting between technologies, rituals, synergies and sensitivities.

We will meet in Axat, south of France, in the space and association Le Dojo, a house that brings together artists, activists, and others since 2011, from October 5-8. The meals will be collective and shared among the participants. The lodging costs 2 euros/day per person. To get to Axat, you need to take a transport to the nearby towns (Carcassone or Perpignan) and then a local bus for one euro. Timetable (in French)

If you are interested in getting to know further the Technoshamanism network, go deeper into ancestry and speculative fiction, we invite you curious people, earthlings, hackers, cyborgs, among other strangers from this anthropocene world to join our meeting bringing your ideas, experiences, practices, etc. Send us a short bio + proposal containing up to 300 words to the email xamanismotecnologico@gmail.com. The open call ends September 18.

Do not hesitate to come back to us for any doubt or comment. Welcome to the Tecnoshamanism network!

Note: This post is a book review. I did not buy this book on Amazon, and if, after reading this post, you consider buying it, I strongly urge you not to buy it on Amazon. Amazon is a proprietary software vendor and, more importantly, a company with highly problematic business and labour practices. They should clean up their act and, failing that, we should all boykot them.

Most of us have heard that the Internet started as a research project initiated by the ARPA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, an agency under the US military conducting advanced research, especially focusing on counter-insurgency and future war scenarios. A common version of this story is that the Internet was originally intended to be a decentralized network, a network with no central hub necessary for its operation, where individual nodes might be taken out without disrupting the traffic, which would just reroute itself through other nodes. A TCP/IP network may indeed work like that, but the true origins of the Internet are far darker.

In the 1940′s and 50′s, Norbert Wiener’s theory of cybernetics became very popular. Wiener was a mathematician who worked for the American military during WWII. The gist of cybernetics is that all systems maintain themselves through feedback between their elements. If one could understand the nature of the feedback that keeps them stable, one could predict their future behaviour. The beauty of this theory is that systems could consist of human beings and machines, and it did not in fact matter if a given element was one or the other; as the systems were supposed to stabilize naturally just like ecosystems, it should be possible to set down mathematical equations they’d need to fulfill to serve their role in the system.

This theory was criticized, in fact even by Wiener himself, for reducing human beings to machines; and the analogy to ecosystems has proven false, as later biological research has shown that ecosystems do not tend to become stable – in fact, they are in constant change. In the 50s, however, this theory was very respected, and ARPA wanted to utilize it for counterinsurgency in Asian countries. For that purpose, they started a detailed anthropological study of tribes in Thailand, recording the people’s physical traits as well as a lot of information about their culture, habits and overall behaviour. The intention was to use this information in cybernetic equations in order to be able to predict people’s behaviour in wars like the Korea or, later, the Vietnam war.

In order to do this, they needed computation power – a lot of it. After the Soviets sent up the Sputnik and beat the Americans to space, there was an extraordinary surge of investments in scientific and engineering research, not least into the field of computers. In the early 60′s, psychologist and computer scientist J.R.C. Licklider proposed “The Intergalactic Network” as a way to provide sufficient computation power for the things that ARPA wanted to do – by networking the computers, so problems might be solved by more computers than the user was currently operating. In doing so, Licklider predicted remote execution, keyboard-operated screens as well as a network layout that was practically identical to (if much smaller than) the current Internet. Apart from providing the power to crunch the numbers needed to supposedly predict the behaviour of large populations for counterinsurgency purposes, the idea that such a network could be used for control and surveillance materialized very early.

In the 1990s, the foundations of the company currently known as Google was created in Stanford Research Institute, a university lab that had for decades been operating as a military contractor. The algorithmic research that gave us the well-known Page Rank algorithm was originally funded by grants from the military.

From the very beginning, Google’s source of income was mining the information in its search log. You could say that from the very beginning, Google’s sole business model has been pervasive surveillance, dividing its users into millions of buckets in order to sell as fine-tuned advertising as possible.

At the same time, Google has always been a prolific military contractor, selling upgraded versions of all kinds of applications to help the US military fight their wars. As an example, Google Earth was originally developed by Keyhole, Inc. with military purposes in mind – the military people loved the video game-like interface, and the maps and geographical features could be overlaid with all kinds of tactical information about targets and allieds in the area.

More controversially, the Tor project, the free software project so lauded by the Internet Freedom and privacy communities, is not what it has consistently described itself as. It is commonly known that it was originally commissioned by a part of the US Navy as an experimental project for helping their intelligence agents stay anonymous, but it is less known that Tor has, since its inception, been almost exclusively financed by the US government, among others through grants from the Pentagon and the CIA but mainly by BBG, the “Broadcasting Board of Governors”, which originated in the CIA.

The BBG’s original mission was to run radio stations like Voice of America and, more recently, Radio Free Asia, targeting the populations of countries that were considered military enemies of the US. Among other things, BBG has been criticized for simply being a propaganda operation, a part of a hostile operation against political adversaries:

Wherever we feel there is an ideological enemy, we’re going to have a Radio Free Something (…) They lean very heavily on reports by and about dissidents in exile. It doesn’t sound like reporting about what’s going on in a country. Often, it reads like a textbook on democracy, which is fine, but even to an American it’s rather propagandistic.

One could ask, what kind of interest could the BBG possibly have in privacy activism such as that supposedly championed by the Tor project? None, of course. But they might be interested in providing dissidents in hostile countries with a way to avoid censorship, maybe even to plot rebellion without being detected by the regime’s Internet surveillance. Radio Free Asia had for years been troubled by the Chinese government’s tendency to block their transmission frequencies. Maybe Tor could be used to blast a hole in the Great Chinese Firewall?

At the same time, Tor could be used by operatives from agencies like the CIA, the NSA or the FBI to hide their tracks when perusing e.g. Al Qaeda web sites.

But, if the US government promotes this tool to dissidents in Russia, China or Iran as a creation of the US government – why would they trust it? And, if an Al Qaeda site suddenly got a spike of visitors all using Tor – maybe they’d figure it out anyway, if Tor was known as a US government tool? Wouldn’t it be nice if millions of people used Tor because they thought they were “sticking it to the man” and “protecting their privacy”, giving legitimacy with respect to the dissidents and cover to the agents?

And so, Tor the Privacy Tool was born. People were told that if they used Tor and were careful, it was cryptographically impossible that anyone should know which sites they were visiting. Except for the fact that Tor has all the time had serious (unintentional) weaknesses which meant that hidden services might have their IP exposed and web site visitors might, with some probability, be identified even if they were using Tor correctly. And using Tor correctly is already very difficult.

Yes, someone like Edward Snowden who knew about its weaknesses and had considerable insight into its security issues could indeed use Tor safely to perform his leaks and communicate about them, for a short while. But advising people in repressive societies with no technical insight who may have their lives at stake doing really serious things to rely on this tool might be … completely irresponsible. Like sending someone in battle with a wooden toy gun.

And maybe, just maybe, the American government was happy enough letting these pesky privacy activists run around with their wooded toy gun, courtesy of Uncle Sam, instead of doing something stupid like demanding effective regulations. And who better to evangelize this wooden toy gun but Jacob Appelbaum, the now-disgraced Tor developer who toured the world pretending to “stick it to the Man”, all the while working for a military contractor and netting a $100,000 paycheck directly from the American government? Maybe, in that sense, Tor as a privacy tool was always worse than nothing.

These are just a few of the topics covered in Yasha Levine’s new book Surveillance Valley. Levine’s idea is to cover the military roots of the modern computer industry, and he does that in gory and unsettling detail. Apart from cybernetics, ARPA, Google and Tor he also covers the influence of cybernetics on the counterculture and its later history of WIRED magazine and the Californian ideology. It also offers a critical examination of the consequences of Edward Snowden’s leaks.

This is not a flawless book; Levine has a point he wishes to get through, and in order to get there, he occasionally resorts “hatchet job” journalism, painting people’s motives in an artificially unfavourable light or not researching his accusations thoroughly enough. For instance, Levine accuses Dingledine and the Tor project of giving vulnerabilities to the government for possible exploitation before making them public. The example he gives to prove that assertion is wrong, and I guess he makes the mistake because his eagerness to nail them made him sloppy, and because Levine himself lacks the technical expertise to see why the vulnerability he mentions (TLS normalization, detectability of Tor traffic) couldn’t possibly have been unknown to others at the time.

But, apart from that, I wholeheartedly recommend the book. It tells a story about Silicon Valley that really isn’t told enough, and it points out some really unpleasant – but, alas, all too true – aspects of the technology that we have all come to depend on. Google, the “cool” and “progressive” do-good-company, in fact a military contractor that helps American drones kill children in Yemen and Afghanistan? As well as a partner in predictive policing and a collector of surveillance data that the NSA may yet try to use to control enemy populations in a Cybernetics War 2.0? The Tor Project as paid shills of the belligerent US foreign policy? And the Internet itself, that supposedly liberating tool, was originally conceived as a surveillance and control mechanism?

Yes, unfortunately – in spite of the book’s flaws, true on all counts. For those of us who love free software because we love freedom itself, that should be an eyeopener.

From October 23 to 29, an international seminar about technoshamanism and the concept of “Digital Land” or “free digital territories” was held in the autonomous ecological project Terra Terra near Reino, Benevento, Italy. The event was organized by Vincenzo Tozzi announced on the Bricolabs Mailing List. The seminar was held in the form of a “Pajelança Quilombólica Digital”, as it’s called in Brazilian Portuguese, a “digital shamanism” brainstorming on the possibilities of using free digital territories to connect free real-world territories.

Vincenzo Tozzi is the founder of the Baobáxia project which is run by the Brazilian network Rede Mocambos, and the main point of departure was the future of Baobáxia – sustainability, development, paths for the future.

Arriving in Napoli, I had the pleasure of meeting Hellekin and Natacha Roussel from Brussels who had received the call through the Bricolabs list. Vince had arranged that we could stay in the Mensa Occupata, a community-run squat in central Napoli that was occupied in 2012 and is the home of a hackerspace, a communal kitchen and a martial arts gym, the “Palestra Populare Vincenzo Leone”, where I was pleased to see that my own favourite capoeira is among the activities.

The actual seminar took place in much more rural settings outside Reino, in the country known locally as “terra delle streghe” or “land of the witches”. With respect to our desire to work with free territories and the inherent project of recuperating and learning from ancestral traditions, the area is interesting in the sense that the land is currently inhabited by the last generation of farmers to cultivate the land with traditional methods supported by an oral tradition which har mostly been lost in the most recent decades. During the seminar, we had the opportunity to meet up with people from the local cooperative Lentamente, which is working to preserve and recuperate the traditional ways of growing crops and keeping animals without machines (hence the name “lentamente”, slowly) as well as trying to preserve as much as possible of the existing oral traditions.

During the seminar, we accomodated to the spirit of the territory and the settings by dividing the day into two parts: In the morning, we would go outside and work on the land until lunchtime, which would be around three o’clock. After dinner, we’d dedicate the evenings to more general discussions as well as to relaxing, often still covering important ground.

After lunch, hopefully properly wake and inspired by the fresh air and the beauty of the countryside, we would start looking at the technical side of things, delve into the code, discuss protocols and standards and explore possible pathways to the future. Among other things, we built some stairs and raised beds on a hillside leading up to the main buildings and picked olives for about twenty litres of oil.

As for the technical side of the encounter, we discussed the structure of the code, the backend repositories and the offline synchronization process with newcomers to the project, reviewed various proposals for the technical future of the project and installed two new mucuas. In the process, we identified some bugs and fixed a couple of them.

An important aspect of the concept of “free digital territories” is that we are looking for and using new metaphors for software development. Middle-class or otherwise well-off people who are used to have the means to employ servants or hire e.g. a lawyer whenever they need one may find it easy to conceive of a computer as a “server” whose life is dedicated to serving its “clients”. For armies of office workers, having a computer pre-equipped with a “desktop” absolutely makes sense. But in the technoshamanism and quilombolic networks we’re not concerned with perpetuating the values and structures of capitalist society. We wish to provide software for free territories, and thus our metaphors are not based on the notion of clients and servers, but of digital land: A mucúa or node of the Baobáxia system is not a “server”, it’s digital land for the free networks to grow and share their culture.

Another important result was that the current offline synchronization and storage using git and git-annex can be generalized to other applications. Baobáxia currently uses a data format whose backend representation and synchronization is fixed by convention, but we could build other applications using the same protocol, a protocol for “eventually connected federated networks“. Other examples of applications that could use this technology for offline or eventually connected communications is wikis, blogs and calendars. One proposal is therefore to create an RFC for this communication, basically documenting and generalizing Baobáxia’s current protocol. The protocol, which at present includes the offline propagation of requests for material not present on a local node of the system, could also be generalized to allow arbitrary messages and commands, e.g. requesting the performance of a service known to be running in another community, to be stored offline and performed when the connection actually happens. This RFC (or RFCs) should be supplemented by proof-of-concept applications which should not be very difficult to write.

This blog post is a quick summary of my personal impressions, and I think there are many more stories to be told about the threads we tried to connect those days in Benevento. All in all, the encounter was very fruitful and I was happy to meet new people and use these days to concentrate of the future of Baobáxia and related projects for free digital territories.

Yesterday, I went to the protest in Barcelona against the incarceration of the leaders of Omnium and ANC, two important separatist movements.

The Catalan question is complex, and there are lots of opinions on all sides. However, after speaking with a lot of people down here and witnessing a quite large demonstration – as shown in these photos – it seems clear that Catalan nationalism is *not* about excluding anyone the way Danish racism and British UKIP-ism is.

After all, Catalonia has been an immigration destination for years, and people are used to living together with two or more languages, with family members from all over Spain. The all-too-familiar right-wing obsession with Islam and the “terror threat” is conspicuously absent from Catalan politics.

And it’s not all about language or regional identity, as many Spanish-speaking people with origins in other parts of Spain wholeheartedly support Catalan indepence.

Rather, it’s about a rejection of and rebellion against the Spanish state which is seen as oppressive and riddled by remnants of Francoism. The slogans were radical: “Fora les forces d’ocupació”, “out with the occupation forces!” and “the streets will always be ours!”

Indeed, for many of the young people it seems to be about getting rid of the Spanish state in order to implement a much more leftist policy on all levels of society – as one sign had it, “we’re seditious, we want to rebel and declare indepence and have a revolution!” First independence, afterwards people will take charge themselves, seems to be the sentiment.

“The people rules and the government obeys!” – is another slogan. The conservative forces behind Puigdemont (the current president) may have other ideas, but for now these are the people they have allied themselves with – people who actually believe in the direct rule of the people themselves. Looking at the people present in the demo, it’s clear that it’s a really broad section of society – old and young, but everybody very peaceful and friendly. There were so many people in the streets that it was getting too much, some especially old people had to be escorted out through the completely filled streets.

The European Union may have decided that Catalans should forget all about independence for the sake of the peace of mind of everyone, but these people honestly don’t seem to give a damn.

The photo displayed above is from a protest in São Paulo on August 30. The protest was because a federal court in São Paulo has decided to strip the area called Jaraguá of its status as indigenous land, effectively expulsing 700 men, women and children from the land they’re currently occupying, no doubt to satisfy hungry developers and real estate vendors in their dreams of seeing soy fields and shopping malls wherever clean forests and rivers can still be found.

The Guaraní will, as may be appreciated from these photos and from this video, not be taking this lying down, in fact the Jaraguá’s designation as indigenous land in 2015 was the result of decades of struggle on their part. With the current Brazilian government, however, and the possibility of the arrival of an even more right-wing one with the presidential elections next years, the prospects might be very bleak indeed.

The aspect of this case which I want to discuss stems from the fact that the photo above as well as the album it links to was taken by my friend Rafael Frazão, an active member of the technoshamanism network who has been instrumental in establishing a collaboration with the Guaraní in Mbya, Pico de Jaraguá (see here, in Portuguese, for an example of this collaboration). As many members of the network use Facebook to communicate, everyone posted the photos of the videos there – and something strange happens: The photos and videos from the protest got much less attention than everything else the same people were posting, as if Facebook was deciding that some things are best left unsaid and consequently declined to show this very protest to anyone.

I’m guessing that the reason is that Facebook’s algorithms figured out the pictures are about a protest and that protests are given low priority because they don’t sit well with ad buyers, e.g., they fall afoul of the algorithms that maximize ad revenue. All in all, a non-political consequence of some people’s reaction to this kind of material.

The effect, however, of this algorithmic decision is highly political. I apologize for speaking in all caps here, but effectively, and especially for those millions of people who use Facebook as their main communication channel, this means that Facebook SPECIFICALLY silenced news about a protest against more than 700 people having their land STOLEN beneath them as just one small step of an ONGOING GENOCIDE against the indigenous population in Brazil. Censorship hardly gets any more serious than that.

But what would the company’s general attitude to that kind of controversy be? Well, in his highly readable review of three books about Facebook, John Lanchester notes that

An early experiment came in the form of Free Basics, a program offering internet connectivity to remote villages in India, with the proviso that the range of sites on offer should be controlled by Facebook. ‘Who could possibly be against this?’ Zuckerberg wrote in the Times of India. The answer: lots and lots of angry Indians. The government ruled that Facebook shouldn’t be able to ‘shape users’ internet experience’ by restricting access to the broader internet. A Facebook board member tweeted that ‘anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?’ As Taplin points out, that remark ‘unwittingly revealed a previously unspoken truth: Facebook and Google are the new colonial powers.’

This kind of censorship, and Google’s and Facebook’s arrogance and colonial attitudes, would not be a problem if these companies were just players among players, but they’re not. For a large majority of Internet users, Google and Facebook are the Internet. With the site itself, Messenger, Instagram and Whatsapp, Facebook is sitting on a near-monopoly on communication between human beings. It’s come to the point where the site is seriously difficult to abandon, with sports clubs, schools and religious organizations using it as their only communication infrastructure.

During the twelve years I’ve followed the free software movement, I’ve seen the movement go back and forth, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, never gaining much ground, but never losing in a big way either.

I suppose with the rise of Google and especially Facebook, this has changed: Free software has lost the battle for nothing less than electronic communication between human beings to a proprietary behemoth, and it is already – exemplified in a very minor and random way by the Guaraní – doing serious damage to democracy, to freedom of speech and to civil society in general.

So, dear lovers of free software, how do we turn this around? Ideally, we could solve the problem for ourselves by creating interoperable platforms built on free software and open standards and convince everybody we want to communicate with to follow us there. So easy, and yet so difficult. How do we do it?

Conversation around technoshamanism in the center of Digital Living Research Commons in the Department of Information Studies & Digital Design at the University of Aarhus.

We talked about the traditions of festivals before the festivals of technoshamanism, such as Brazilian tactical media, Digitofagy, Submidialogy, MSST (Satellitless Movement), etc. We presented the Baobáxia and the indigenous / quilombola struggles in the city and the countryside. The aesthetic manifestations of encounters of technoshamanism as well as ideas about free or postcolonial thoughts, ancestorfuturism and new Subjective territories.

Organized by Martin Brynskov and Elyzabeth Joy Holford (directors of the departament and hacklab) and colaborators as Kata Börönte, Winnie Soon and Kristoffer Thyrrestrup and students of the departament. Connection and introduction of Carsten Agger, with the participation of Fabiane M. Borges, Raisa Inocêncio and Ariane Stolfi.

“The venue was really beautiful and well-equipped, its staff was helpful
and people in the audience were friendly and interested. Everything went
completely smoothly and according to plan, and the final ritual was
wonderful with its combination of Arab flute, drumming, noise and visual
performance. All in all a wonderful event.” (Carsten Agger)

“I think it was really instructive and incredibly cool to be with people who have so much knowledge and passion about the subjects they are dealing with. Communication seems to be the focal point, and there was a great willingness to let people express their minds.” (Sebastian Tranekær)

“The meeting was very diverse, the afternoon with speeches and discussion of some topics linked to the network of technoshamanism, such as self-organization, decolonization of thought, then we discussed technology and future cyborg and at the end we talked about noise and feminism. Ritual open with the participation of other people and was very curious to see the engagement, – it was a rite of rock!! ” (Raisa Inocêncio)”

It was so nice to see Aarhus again, this dome of vision is really special place, thank you to all of you!! We did just one day of meeting and we could not listen everybody, but I am sure it is just the beginning!!! I agree with Raisa, it was a rite of rock-noise. (Fabiane M. Borges)

Amalia Fonfara: (Greenland 1985) Artist and shamanic practitioner based in Trondheim. Since 2010, Amalia Fonfara has lived in Norway. She holds a bachelor of fine art (2013) and an international master of fine art (2015), from Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. Fonfara has studied different esoteric practices, including spiritism, shamanism and contemplative healing practices. She is currently doing a one year study prg. at Scandinavian Center of Shamanic Studies in Sweden. In her artistic practice the perception of reality, imagination and spirituality are closely connected and intertwined. Will present the Invisible Drum project at this event. www.amaliafonfara.com

Carsten Agger: Software developer, activist and writer, active in social movements for free software and civil rights and against racism and colonial wars, for twenty years. Trained as a theoretical physicist he works as a free software developer, contributes to the Baobáxia project and co-organized the LibreOffice Conference 2015. He wrote a book about the Qur’an and is currently studying Norse religion and language for a comparative project. Served two years on the board of the hackerspace Open Space Aarhus and co-organized the II International Festival of Technoshamanism and technoshamanism events in Aarhus and Berlin. www.modspil.dk

Fabiane M. Borges holds a Post PhD in Visual Arts and a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the Pontifícia Universidade Católica in São Paolo (Brazil) and works as a psychologist, artist and essayist; organizes events relative to art and technology and social movements; authored two books, Domínios do Demasiado (Hucitec/2010) and Breviário de Pornografia Esquizotrans (ExLibres 2010); coordinated two books with the media, art and technology network Submidialogia (Ideias Perigozas, 2010, and Peixe Morto, 2011). She is one of the organizers of the I and II International Festival of Technoshamanism – http://technoshamanism.wordpress.com/en Blog: https://catahistorias.wordpress.com/ – e-mail: ca t a d o re s@gm a il. c om

Raisa Inocêncio: Brazilian, born in 1989. She studied philosophy at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and Visual Arts at Parque Lage School. Now studying at Toulouse University (France) in Erasmus Mundus Masters Europhilosophie. Research on the aesthetic-political practices of post-porn movement through performing actions and references such as artists Anne Sprinkle, Diana Torres, the collective Coyote, Ju Dorneles among others.

Rune Hjarnø Rasmussen:Graduated from the University of Copenhagen with an MA in History of Religions and Anthropology, which included two fieldwork periods in Brazil and two in Uganda. He has self-published a book on the role of traditional songs in Capoeira, and has collaborated on documentary film work on the role of religion in Ghana (2002). He worked for two years in humanitarian work removing land-mines in Angola and the Nuba Mountains in Sudan, and he has worked and published on anti-trafficking. He is currently finishing a PhD on ritual technologies in Afro-Brazilian religion.

Samuel Capps is a British artist whose work, among them the recent show ‘Relics from the De-Crypt’, work around themes similar to technoshamanism. He also runs the gallery Gossamer Fog in London. www.samuelcapps.com

Winnie Soon: Winnie Soon is an artist-researcher who resides in Hong Kong and Denmark. Her work approach spans the fields of artistic practice and software studies, examining the materiality of computational processes that underwrite our experiences and realities in digital culture. Winnie’s work has been presented at festivals, conferences and museums throughout the Asia Pacific, Europe and America, including but not limited to Transmediale2015/2017, ISEA2015/2016, ARoS Aarhus Art Museum, Si Shang Art Museum, Pulse Art + Technology Festival, Hong Kong Microwave International Media Arts Festival, FutureEverything Art Exhibition. Currently, she is assistant professor at the Department of Digital Design and Information Studies in Aarhus University. More info: www.siusoon.net